Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[numberthirty]

To me that is a legitimate discussion. The "not cinema" argument is just inane. And of course, streaming has changed the way we watch film. So that is a better discussion.

That is exactly what this comes down to.

Film makers from the time before films had sound or color could probably make a pretty solid argument for why everything Scorcese has ever done isn't really cinema.

That entire rabbit hole is only going to wind up with a body chasing it's own tail at the bottom.

[CliffHanger2]

Yeah this all seems to come down to directors fearing they're type of movies will be pushed out of theaters. the MCU is just a scapegoat. It's been said a thousand times it's streaming and ondemand that has really changed the game. People have many,many coices they don't have to go to theaters anymore. And when they choose to it's gonna be for the event movies,big spectacles and things they haven't seen before like Get Out.

Scorsese just got old but you still have Tarantino and lots of new brilliant directors like Jordan Peele still doing their thing in theaters. Ppl wanna see new things and the new talent is into doing comic movies right now. Even Scorsese admits if he were younger he'd probably be more excited for them. The fear that the only movies in theaters will be MCU movies is totally irrational. and no you can't have an objective opinion about a bunch of movies you haven't seen. Which seems to be the trend among the harshest MCU critics.

[Beaddle]

That is exactly what this comes down to.

Film makers from the time before films had sound or color could probably make a pretty solid argument for why everything Scorcese has ever done isn't really cinema.

That entire rabbit hole is only going to wind up with a body chasing it's own tail at the bottom.

Its not the same thing. sound, color was an evolution in film technology. like music were onced listened in Walkman tapes, then CD, now we have Mp3 and iphones.

MCU is not the equivalent of the evolution of film technology. the rabbit hole is forcing everyone to have a conversation that has been ignored for so long.

[numberthirty]

Its not the same thing. sound, color was an evolution in film technology. like music were one listened in Walkman tapes, then CD, now we have Mp3 and iphones.

MCU is not the equivalent of the evolution of film technology. the rabbit hole is forcing everyone to have a conversation that has been ignored for so long.

If someone is going to insist that the difference between silent film and film with sound is simply a technical one and not even remotely an artistic one?

Not much point in talking what is "Actually Cinema" after that.

[numberthirty]

As for Scorcese, there is a pretty good argument for that his life's work is the MCU following what came before him(The Silent Film Era and Orson Welles being the obvious examples of work that makes Scorcese's work look a lot like an "MCU" equivalent).

[Beaddle]

Gotta love Willem Dafoe, "But I don’t have anything, really, intelligent to say about this" says a guy who says many intelligent things about it. Dafoe's major leading role in a movie is Scorsese's The last Temptation of Christ. That's how Scorsese dealt with Jesus, a guy who didn't believe violence was the way to defeat evil (as opposed to superheroes who do in fact believe and practice the opposite) where he showed Jesus with inner torment, doubts, worries, hangups and made him someone who was a little weird and quirky.

Dafoe famously mocked the Amazing Spider-Man films noting they were just retreading and redoing stuff the first Raimi movies did.

.

The video clip is up.



I had no idea Dafoe was in last temptation of christ. I will always see him as one of the greatest comic villains playing Norman. when he said raimi made his spiderman movies independent it takes me back to the screenplay of spiderman 2002. the movie sets up the contrast mirror parenting relationship of Peter and Uncle Ben vs Harry and Norman. it was a good theme in the story as it shaped the outcome of what Peter and Harry become in the sequels. these are the things that are absent with MCU Spiderman that makes me question the writing of their films.

What Dafoe talks about the movies being overshot is also a huge problem. A good percentage of MCU stuff is done in reshoots and so on. They take time to schedule actors to give dates for reshoots after previews and feedback and so on. That means even less control for directors than before...and it's also a case of a problem of having different teams doing stunts and pre-vis than the director so when you have to do the preview the footage and other stuff don't cut well so things need to be redone to synch both up.

Reshoots are never a good sign and you are right that the more you reshoot a film the more the directors loose their impact. I have no idea how much mcu does reshoots.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If someone is going to insist that the difference between silent film and film with sound is simply a technical one and not even remotely an artistic one?

Not much point in talking what is "Actually Cinema" after that.

Here's the thing, if Chaplin or Stroheim told Scorsese his movies aren't cinema, Scorsese would shut up, listen, take it, and move on. He wouldn't throw hissy fits like the Marvel directors are doing or go on about, "People in theatre and vaudeville said the same thing about nickelodeons and so on". He'd be a little mature, listen to what elder statesmen of his profession were saying, try and learn what he can from what their saying and push harder The reason we can assume Scorsese would do that, is that when Scorsese was a young man people like Kazan and Cassavetes gave him harsh feedback about his early stuff, and Scorsese still went out of his way to honor them, and support them.

All the MCU have to do is, "We welcome any criticism, and we will try and push harder, we are never satisfied and will always try and do better". That would still be boilerplate that skirts the issues but it would be something.

As for Scorcese, there is a pretty good argument for that his life's work is the MCU following what came before him(The Silent Film Era and Orson Welles being the obvious examples of work that makes Scorcese's work look a lot like an "MCU" equivalent).

It's a pretty bad argument s'what it is. For one thing what came before Scorsese was the Studio System era of the 50s and 60s a time of expensive big musicals and giant Hollywood epics. What also came before Scorsese was the explosion of international and foreign cinema, and experimental cinema and documentaries. The silent era was well and truly gone by that time. And in any case, most of the silent era stuff was pretty inaccessible in that period since film restoration and preservation hadn't gone into full gear yet and wouldn't really do so...until Scorsese started his foundations.

As for Orson Welles, he was always an outsider to the film industry. Whether it's the Hollywood of the 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s, he always was an outsider. You're painting Welles as some established old professional who was put to pasture by Scorsese when that's not remotely the case. Welles also didn't have the critical esteem that Scorsese now has. In the '60s and '70s, Welles' reputation was that overrated guy who peaked early for that one movie. Every Welles movie was divisive and it was Scorsese among others who turned a critical spotlight to his later films.

[thwhtGuardian]

Some number crunching based on films last year to go with the erroneous idea that Blockbusters are crowding out the competition:

The MPAA reported in its entertainment market survey that in 2018, there were a whopping 758 total movies released in the United States. Ticket sales were also up in 2018 to the tune of $1.3 billion, a more than five percent increase from 2017. So the year’s three Marvel movies made up .003 percent of the movies released in theaters. If we want to include Disney movies, that number jumps to nine, and if we were to include Solo: A Star Wars Story, we get to 10, or still a paltry 1.3%. If you throw in WB, universal , Sony and Fox for the sake of it they had Aquaman, Fantastic Beasts, Deadpool 2, Spiderverse, Venom and Jurassic World 2....which is still just 2% of all the films that came out the whole year. Even if you want to go dollars rather than total number of movies Blockbusters don't make up the majority, the US box office for 2018 was $11.89 billion and all together the big studio blockbusters of the year contributed $4.6 billion...which is just 34% of the pie meaning that which ever way you slice it there was still plenty of room for other films to be seen.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Some number crunching based on films last year to go with the erroneous idea that Blockbusters are crowding out the competition:

The MPAA reported in its entertainment market survey that in 2018, there were a whopping 758 total movies released in the United States. Ticket sales were also up in 2018 to the tune of $1.3 billion, a more than five percent increase from 2017. So the year’s three Marvel movies made up .003 percent of the movies released in theaters. If we want to include Disney movies, that number jumps to nine, and if we were to include Solo: A Star Wars Story, we get to 10, or still a paltry 1.3%. If you throw in WB, universal , Sony and Fox for the sake of it they had Aquaman, Fantastic Beasts, Deadpool 2, Spiderverse, Venom and Jurassic World 2....which is still just 2% of all the films that came out the whole year. Even if you want to go dollars rather than total number of movies Blockbusters don't make up the majority, the US box office for 2018 was $11.89 billion and all together the big studio blockbusters of the year contributed $4.6 billion...which is just 34% of the pie meaning that which ever way you slice it there was still plenty of room for other films to be seen.

That reflects the state of industry right now, but not how different it was from before, or how much harder it is for things to get made.

Even the Russos admitted that it was hard to get their upcoming Tom Holland movie off the ground:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/m...-brothers.html

Likewise, just today there was an article about the box-office is way lower than it was this time last year.
https://screenrant.com/ford-v-ferrar...19-box-office/

Sure things might not be as bad or totally dire as people are making it out to be but the point is to warn and complain before things get way worse. That's what climate change activism is all about after all.

The simple fact that Scorsese couldn't get major studios to make a movie with himself, DeNiro, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci is pretty shocking in and of itself. That it has to be relegated to Netflix, this after he won an Oscar for a similar movie made 14 years back, after his most recent films being huge hits is pretty dispiriting.

[Kirby101]

It has always been hard to get films made. Read about Lucas trying to get the money for Star Wars. He needed Coppola and Spielberg to bat for him. And Orson Welles went begging for years.

[thwhtGuardian]

That reflects the state of industry right now, but not how different it was from before, or how much harder it is for things to get made.

Even the Russos admitted that it was hard to get their upcoming Tom Holland movie off the ground:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/m...-brothers.html

Likewise, just today there was an article about the box-office is way lower than it was this time last year.
https://screenrant.com/ford-v-ferrar...19-box-office/

Sure things might not be as bad or totally dire as people are making it out to be but the point is to warn and complain before things get way worse. That's what climate change activism is all about after all.

It's always been hard to get those types of movies financed though, it's why directors like Scorsese have fewer films made than guys like Spielberg. The ratio to big budget studio films to small or midlevel films hasn't changed, just pick any year you like and I bet it would match up pretty well with the break down from above.

It's a fallacy pure and simple, they may feel like te landscape is drastically different but that doesn't mean that's reality especially as their odds of getting their passion projects off the ground now have actually increased thanks to streaming companies looking to compete with traditional studious. Again, that may feel like a come down from getting films financed by the big studious but again that feeling doesn't match reality as it isn't a come down at all because the result is the films get made and people get to see them.

And climate activism? You're kidding right? This isn't analogous at all because things aren't getting worse by any real metric; with hte rise of streaming services and crowdfunding the odds of getting eyeballs on your project are actually greater than ever before.

[Farealmer]

Sure things might not be as bad or totally dire as people are making it out to be but the point is to warn and complain before things get way worse. That's what climate change activism is all about after all.

Those two things are not even close to the same. A global climate disaster is a potential existential threat. Expensive blockbusters taking over the theaters isn't going to end mankind.

[thwhtGuardian]

Those two things are not even close to the same. A global climate disaster is a potential existential threat. Expensive blockbusters taking over the theaters isn't going to end mankind.

It's not even going to end cinema...because it isn't actually taking up most of people's entertainment dollars.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It has always been hard to get films made. Read about Lucas trying to get the money for Star Wars. He needed Coppola and Spielberg to bat for him.

Because Lucas was a young up-and-coming film-maker whose career at the time was not very distinguished. Likewise, the previous science-fiction movie he made THX-1138 was a huge flop so people had real doubts why, after he made a hit movie about teenagers in the early '60s like American Graffiti, they should throw money on another attempt by him to make science-fiction happen.

Not the same thing.

And Orson Welles went begging for years.

Welles was never a mainstream film-maker to start with.

It's a fallacy pure and simple, they may feel like te landscape is drastically different but that doesn't mean that's reality especially as their odds of getting their passion projects off the ground now have actually increased thanks to streaming companies looking to compete with traditional studious.

If people in the film industry across the board from Scorsese to Willem Dafoe to the Russos themselves and also Lucas and Spielberg years back are talking about how hard things are compared to before...I don't think you crunching numbers and balancing the books is going to count for more than their lived experiences and professional judgment.

And climate activism? You're kidding right?

If you care a lot about art and craft, and a certain seriousness and high standards, it would feel as dire.

I mean it's not just film-makers but people in comics like Alan Moore who said this recently:
"I think the impact of superheroes on popular culture is both tremendously embarrassing and not a little worrying. While these characters were originally perfectly suited to stimulating the imaginations of their twelve or thirteen year-old audience, today’s franchised übermenschen, aimed at a supposedly adult audience, seem to be serving some kind of different function, and fulfilling different needs. Primarily, mass-market superhero movies seem to be abetting an audience who do not wish to relinquish their grip on (a) their relatively reassuring childhoods, or (b) the relatively reassuring 20th century. The continuing popularity of these movies to me suggests some kind of deliberate, self-imposed state of emotional arrest, combined with an numbing condition of cultural stasis that can be witnessed in comics, movies, popular music and, indeed, right across the cultural spectrum."
(https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/11...tankerousness/)

[thwhtGuardian]

Because Lucas was a young up-and-coming film-maker whose career at the time was not very distinguished. Likewise, the previous science-fiction movie he made THX-1138 was a huge flop so people had real doubts why, after he made a hit movie about teenagers in the early '60s like American Graffiti, they should throw money on another attempt by him to make science-fiction happen.

Not the same thing.



Welles was never a mainstream film-maker to start with.



If people in the film industry across the board from Scorsese to Willem Dafoe to the Russos themselves and also Lucas and Spielberg years back are talking about how hard things are compared to before...I don't think you crunching numbers and balancing the books is going to count for more than their lived experiences and professional judgment.



If you care a lot about art and craft, and a certain seriousness and high standards, it would feel as dire.

I mean it's not just film-makers but people in comics like Alan Moore who said this recently:
"I think the impact of superheroes on popular culture is both tremendously embarrassing and not a little worrying. While these characters were originally perfectly suited to stimulating the imaginations of their twelve or thirteen year-old audience, today’s franchised übermenschen, aimed at a supposedly adult audience, seem to be serving some kind of different function, and fulfilling different needs. Primarily, mass-market superhero movies seem to be abetting an audience who do not wish to relinquish their grip on (a) their relatively reassuring childhoods, or (b) the relatively reassuring 20th century. The continuing popularity of these movies to me suggests some kind of deliberate, self-imposed state of emotional arrest, combined with an numbing condition of cultural stasis that can be witnessed in comics, movies, popular music and, indeed, right across the cultural spectrum."
(https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/11...tankerousness/)

As I said, what people feel and reality of the situation are often not the same. Take any year you want and I bet money you'd see that the ratios aren't that different than today.